3 ms·

What if they did fully consider it, and reached a decision that you disagree with?

• jerf 7y ago
  I have a hard time buying that anyone deliberately shipped a security feature that permanently opens access short of rebooting the system into a special mode. A "full deliberation" would presumably include input from a dedicated security team, who would almost certainly say "better not to ship this at all and leave the old behavior in than ship this". So either the security team missed this entirely, or the security team was not consulted, or the security team is not empowered to stop this sort of half-baked feature from going in... I really can't come up with a pleasant scenario here.
  • floatingatoll 7y ago
    Or the security team agrees that the benefit to the 99.9% of macOS users (that have no idea Terminal exists and accepts drag and drop) is worth the additional risk to the 0.1% who use this.
  • jjoonathan 7y ago
    "We're trying to ship a system-wide permission lockdown, but we ran into unforeseen complications that will require more than a single release cycle to properly address. Instead of holding up the entire rollout for a release cycle, we'll ship the lockdown today and most users will benefit from it, but users that would otherwise run into the complications get a permissive bypass. Once the infrastructure to address the complications is in place, we'll get the lockdown working for them as well."
    • jerf 7y ago
      The near-complete inability to revert the permission is what argues against this. You could get this past a security team if you had the ability to revert it and Apple could document it away. It is the fact that it is a non-revertible thing (in any reasonable manner) that is the key here. The odds that there's some way to chain this in an interesting way are just too high, even if the security team couldn't immediately come up with it.